Lord Ratner

That's an oversimplification. If guns are 100% illegal in all circumstances, then anyone with a gun is by definition a criminal and can be engaged accordingly. That makes things vastly simpler from a defensive/law enforcement perspective. It would absolutely, positively reduce the number of mass murders, gang killings, and other firearms associated fatalities. Those numbers are very obviously shown in countries that have outright bans on firearms. I'm completely against that position, but trying to boil it down to "the bad guys will have it anyways" is excessively simplistic. This applies even more so to drones. It is simply easier to do something illegal with a tool that is legal than it is to do with an illegal tool. If we go so far as to say that civilian drone ownership is illegal, then the ROE for drones gets very simple very fast. See it, shoot it. I'm against making guns illegal because I believe in the core premise of the second amendment. The risk of government-induced tyranny is far worse than the loss of life associated with the legalization of firearms. I do not believe that premise extends to drones. I'm also not advocating for making drones illegal (haven't given it enough thought), but it's a hyper-libertarian argument to say that "bad guys will have it anyways" and almost every hyper-libertarian argument collapses upon contact with reality.

I guess I don't understand the political motivation for deploying the national guard in Los Angeles. The Democrats have almost entirely been responsible for Republicans winning the last few cycles, because their governance inevitably blows up in the faces of their constituencies. California and specifically San Francisco are good examples. Illegal immigration and the trans stuff is another good example. So why save the day when the governor and mayor are protesting your involvement? I feel like a better strategy would be to continue doing what the people elected Trump to do, which is beef up immigration enforcement, and if there's a riot in Los Angeles every time and an illegal is detained, so be it. Wait for the riot to end, then go back in and detain another illegal. It should only take two or three of these riots before Los Angeles is brought to its knees, and then they can request the national guard from the president and allow Trump to swoop in and save the day. I have no love for these "protestors," but California clearly does, so why not let them reap what they sow? If the fear is damage to Federal facilities, use it as justification to move as many federal facilities out of California as possible. Part of the reason the swamp exists is because all of the federal infrastructure is in the most liberal parts of the country. This would be a great excuse for bringing in some more balance.

This is a stupid argument. It's like arguing that amusement parks are a waste or zoos are cruel. Humans are not machines. They need entertainment and fanfare and first person contact with something for it to matter in their lives. Parades bring the military to the people we desperately need to support us. This type of thinking is why so many utopians and central planners keep failing over and over in their attempts to "improve" society. It may seem better to spend money on a hospital instead of a parade, just like a base theater is a "waste" of money when the runways needs new lighting. But entertainment is not optional; it's human nature.

Yes, but it is also blowing up much more spectacular than I thought. The circus continues 🤷🏻‍♂️

No one was ever making that argument. The airlines allow me to be a better husband and a better father. I can provide more and be around for more than the military ever allowed. It's not even close. I will never have to say goodbye to my kids for 6-12 months, or watch the birth of the next one on Skype. I absolutely enjoyed the shit out of my military career, even with the rather disruptive ending, but it's not even remotely questionable that my family is better off with an airline pilot rather than a military pilot at the helm. It's a young man's game.

I've always thought that January 6th was notable because it was the first time in my life that conservatives rioted. And it absolutely was a riot. It was not an insurrection by any stretch of the imagination, but it is the sole corollary to what the left has been doing (as you pointed out) for years.

Please, don't make him correct right after I responded. Self righteous Christians are just as obnoxious as self righteous atheists.

Oh God please don't add bitter atheist to your already tiresome persona. Guys like you are the only thing that make being an atheist embarrassing.

Wait so is your argument now that it's cognitive decline similar to Biden, or that he's just lying during a speech? If it's the latter pardon me for being bored by something that every politician from Thomas Jefferson to Trump has engaged in rather enthusiastically.

Yup. The process needs to go away for volume to increase enough to bring prices down. I dunno, I'm skeptical, but optimistic.

Dude if that makes it through the Senate...

The problem isn't the parties, it's the people. We've reached the part of the cycle where everyone expects everything for less than they put in to the system. We'll either go the route of Greece (in progress) or a big, scary, deadly catastrophe will finally jolt people into a new era of "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

I hear she smells like sulphur...

I never thought she was hot, but whatever she was, she's certainly not less of it because of Donald Trump. Here we go again, Donald Trump sabotages his own success because he's another Boomer addicted to social media. Oh well.

1. Nothing was dismissed. A source was laughed at. Hell I'm still laughing at it. I even addressed the point about Netanyahu. Think, McFly. 2. I am able, simple unwilling. See below. I don't feel the need to explain why slavery is bad either. Grownups should know why already. 3. The history is fine. The slogan "killing civilians is bad" is, as I said, childish, ignorant, and meaningless. You can have a stupid opinion without being stupid. I will say, however, that at this point I am starting to think he's stupid as well. You, however, just seem like another nsplayer. I guess there must always be one. 4. Specifically the insanity of a military member simplifying collateral damage to "bad." I expect that of a 21 year old English major. Not an officer. 5. Toughen up. There are stupid ideas. Also, Step 6? "Killing Civilians is Bad" is naive specifically because of the ethical complexity. If you have a point to make for once, by all means, let's hear it. But if you're going to make a stupid point that everyone within the community should already be completely familiar with, such as the aforementioned point on civilian death, don't expect a ton of effort dispelling it.

You're right, incoherent was not the right word to use. Childish, ignorant, meaningless... Those would have been better descriptors. It is fascinating to see someone in the military make such a vapid comment, considering their profession has and always will understand the (bad) necessity of killing civilians. In fact, it is precisely the banality associated with your statement that has led to Hamas hiding behind civilians as their primary strategy. The Useful Fools are multiplying. I expect it from a college campus, not from supposed educated service members. Oh well.

So... They hide behind civilians, which gets the civilians bombed, and because they implement the strategy consistently and effectively you no longer believe it? Copy. What's hilarious and sad is that Hamas is not even particularly shy about this, admitting their strategy openly over the years. Ah, there it is. So strange to have someone who is/was in the military have such a morally confused position. Your geopolitical philosophy is ultimately incoherent and incompatible with the realities of human nature, so the things you must believe (and refuse to believe) will be increasingly unhinged as the inconsistencies build. Edit: Also, holy shit dude, *that's* the source you want to post 😂🤣. This is like asking a Boeing lobbyist for dispassionate facts about the 737 Max crashes. For anyone interested, check out their statement of "journalistic" integrity: https://www.972mag.com/about-journalism-israel-palestinian/

I call bullshit. Zero percent chance a helo driver passes on a lifetime of threesomes, even if it's a couple legs short.

Well, you see, uh, the Israelis had a blockade, so, uh, all that money *had* to be spent on building terrorist tunnel networks that civilians weren't allowed to use for shelter, and, uh, lavish penthouses in Qatar. Because it's like if you and your neighbor had dogs, and... The extent to which people will go to draw equivalence between any two groups of people is astounding. But seeing this new wave of neoconservatism embrace moral relativism is fascinating... I understand it from the socialists, everything is about power hierarchies and their entire philosophy requires people to have no agency or moral worth. But if the Palestinians and the Israelis are on some sort of equal moral footing, or even more hilariously, if the Israelis are somehow *more* responsible for the bloodshed than the monsters holding the machete and gleefully raping a woman before she dies, why concern ourselves with right and wrong at all, ever? Sure, if you took a Palestinian baby and raised it in an Israeli household, that baby would almost certainly grow up with no hatred of the Jews and a western Outlook on freedom, morality, individual agency. Now, aside from the fact that that premise *supports* the strategy of occupation and forced relocation, what does it matter? People don't exist as individuals, they exist as part of social communities. And social communities have unique characteristics that make some better than others. For example, since the enlightenment the West has had a historically unique appreciation for individual sovereignty and rule of law. That makes our culture *better* than say, a group of cannibals living on the Amazon. Or for example, a society motivated to rape and slaughter their neighbors based solely off of religious history and guidance from their political and spiritual leaders. It's perfectly reasonable to suggest the US shouldn't be involved in the Palestinian conflict. But to suggest equivalence is bananas. It's like saying we are no better than the Taliban. Somehow this entire twisted philosophy requires accepting that any mistake by the West justifies any response by our adversaries.

Tit for tat? 😂🤣 Bro you have no idea what you're talking about. Just another Westerner with no concept of how other cultures think. Ironically, this is the same misinterpretation of Islamic fundamentalism that brought us the forever-wars you seem to be (incorrectly) comparing this to. If only the Palestinians weren't under a blockade, there'd be peace! Thanks for the chuckle.

You need senior talent to have "senior talent impacts."

We did 13 hours in the tanker pretty regularly, and the seat wasn't nearly as adjustable or comfortable as in the 737. I wouldn't want to do it, but compared to other military flying it's not notably awful.

Of the three, prestige is the motivation I want my generals seeking the least. Pay them.

I will be forever baffled by dudes who get off on secret footage of women doing routine non-sexual activity in various stages of undress, and forever grateful that I don't have whatever brain defect creates that kink.

🎯